davieG Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Matt Gillies November 1, 1959 December 1, 1968 437 174 105 158 1.43 All in the First Division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Matt Gillies November 1, 1959 December 1, 1968 437 174 105 158 1.43All in the First Division Mainly in the top half of the division too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicfox Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Correct, Stats are just numbers!! All I have done here is added in the points per game stat which I worked out. I am not saying that these stats represent anything, and the criticisms above are correct - If I can get hold of extra info I will try to enrich what I have already done! HAHA i just read what i wrote. I was under the infleuence of wacky backy. It makes my brain tick over at double time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 24 January 2007 Author Share Posted 24 January 2007 Big Up the apologists Four points off relegation and playing the worst football for a generation tells me exactly how successful Rob Kelly is. At least he won't be around too much longer Mate I am not trying to make a case for the benefit of anybody I am just trying to put Kelly into context as best as the data I could find will let me. It certainly does not justify our current position - I realise that. For the record I am in the "Keep Kelly until we can find a manager who is likely to take the club places over 5 years" band. He is not a 5 year manager so will go in one way or another over the next 7 or 8 months I imagine. Whether that is a change of role, or the sack or resignation I don't know. . I heard Jose was saving himself for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sods Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 I just did a quick analysis of the average number of points per game for each of our managers in our clubs history. It produces some very interesting results. Kelly scores 0.2 above the club average, but behind Adams, O'Niell and Little. And look at Brian Little at number 2! I never would have thought he'd be that high! Name From To P W D L PPG Frank O'Farrell December 1, 1968 June 6, 1971 114 51 35 28 1.65 Brian Little May 30, 1991 November 22, 1994 178 76 44 58 1.53 David Halliday July 1, 1955 October 31, 1958 145 64 27 54 1.51 Peter Hodge May 1, 1919 May 1, 1926 312 125 84 103 1.47 William Orr July 1, 1926 January 1, 1932 240 101 50 89 1.47 Norman Bullock December 1, 1949 February 1, 1955 231 91 64 76 1.46 James Blessington January 1, 1907 February 1, 1909 84 32 26 26 1.45 Micky Adams April 7, 2002 October 11, 2004 111 41 38 32 1.45 Martin O'Neill December 21, 1995 June 1, 2000 223 85 68 70 1.45 Matt Gillies November 1, 1959 December 1, 1968 437 174 105 158 1.43 William Clark August 1, 1896 May 31, 1897 30 13 4 13 1.43 Andy Aitken February 1, 1909 May 1, 1911 98 43 10 45 1.42 Frank Womack October 1, 1936 May 1, 1939 124 48 30 46 1.40 Rob Kelly February 13, 2006 Present 48 18 13 17 1.40 Jock Wallace May 24, 1978 July 12, 1982 169 62 48 59 1.38 Total Club Record August 1, 1896 Present 4218 1573 1093 1552 1.38 George Johnson August 1, 1898 January 1, 1907 301 114 72 115 1.38 Johnny Duncan March 1, 1946 October 1, 1949 154 56 42 56 1.36 Andy Lochhead August 1, 1934 October 1, 1936 97 36 20 41 1.32 Gordon Milne August 2, 1982 June 3, 1986 177 63 40 74 1.29 Peter Hodge March 1, 1932 July 31, 1934 102 34 27 41 1.26 David Pleat December 24, 1987 January 29, 1991 153 49 44 60 1.25 Jimmy Bloomfield June 23, 1971 May 23, 1977 264 75 99 90 1.23 John W Bartlett March 1, 1912 March 1, 1914 80 29 11 40 1.23 Peter Taylor June 12, 2000 September 30, 2001 54 19 9 26 1.22 Mark McGhee December 14, 1994 December 7, 1995 51 16 14 21 1.22 Craig Levein November 1, 2004 January 25, 2006 72 20 26 26 1.19 Gordon Lee January 30, 1991 May 29, 1991 20 7 2 11 1.15 Bryan Hamilton June 3, 1986 December 11, 1987 71 21 15 35 1.10 Dave Bassett October 10, 2001 April 6, 2002 27 4 8 15 0.74 Frank McLintock June 9, 1977 April 5, 1978 37 4 12 21 0.65 If you just take the managers since David Pleat the club average actually drops, meaning we have been on average worse since 1987, thanks to the performers in the bottom half of the table Name From To P W D L PPG Brian Little May 30, 1991 November 22, 1994 178 76 44 58 1.53 Micky Adams April 7, 2002 October 11, 2004 111 41 38 32 1.45 Martin O'Neill December 21, 1995 June 1, 2000 223 85 68 70 1.45 Rob Kelly February 13, 2006 Present 48 18 13 17 1.40[/b] Total Club Record August 1, 1896 Present 560 220 163 177 1.36[/b] David Pleat December 24, 1987 January 29, 1991 153 49 44 60 1.25 Peter Taylor June 12, 2000 September 30, 2001 54 19 9 26 1.22 Mark McGhee December 14, 1994 December 7, 1995 51 16 14 21 1.22 Craig Levein November 1, 2004 January 25, 2006 72 20 26 26 1.19 Dave Bassett October 10, 2001 April 6, 2002 27 4 8 15 0.74 *I got the raw data for this off the wikipedia page on LCFC *I removed any managers who werein charge for under 10 games Just thought it made some interesting reading, not sure if anyone has worked this out before. Don't think this tells the right story as martin did better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Mainly in the top half of the division too. Not to mention some of the football we played - exhillerating at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Big Up the apologists Four points off relegation and playing the worst football for a generation tells me exactly how successful Rob Kelly is. At least he won't be around too much longer This team has the least amount of talent/experience of any Leicester have fielded in the last 50 years, you could put that solely at RK's door, in fact you have, but that doesn't sound reasonable to me. When you make statements with conviction like "He won't be around too much longer" Where do you get this from, are you guessing and making it a statement or do you have hard evidence to support it? Just mildly curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gist Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 2005/6 20 10 4 6 ppg 1.70 2006/7 28 8 9 11 ppg 1.18 (league results only) This is the trend and highlights our frustrations It's only because Kelly did so well last season that over these stats it looks like hes doing well when really we are just getting worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfieldfox. Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Can I assume that for the purposes of this analysis 3 points have been awarded for a win for those managers in charge when the 2 point per win applied.......if not it makes some of our latter day managers look even worse. Great work anyway. Challenging to say the least. It may inform when to call it a day for a manager over a period of say a season by doing some 'standard deviation' stuff...... Still it is easier to look at the table and then chuck them out if dire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janx Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 Can I assume that for the purposes of this analysis 3 points have been awarded for a win for those managers in charge when the 2 point per win applied.......if not it makes some of our latter day managers look even worse. Great work anyway. Challenging to say the least. It may inform when to call it a day for a manager over a period of say a season by doing some 'standard deviation' stuff...... Still it is easier to look at the table and then chuck them out if dire. Have you always come from Burton Hardylad...can you still smell the Marmite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 24 January 2007 Author Share Posted 24 January 2007 Can I assume that for the purposes of this analysis 3 points have been awarded for a win for those managers in charge when the 2 point per win applied.......if not it makes some of our latter day managers look even worse. Great work anyway. Challenging to say the least. It may inform when to call it a day for a manager over a period of say a season by doing some 'standard deviation' stuff...... Still it is easier to look at the table and then chuck them out if dire. The points awarded are 3 for a win and 1 for a draw throughout. Like I said I will try to look into it more when I have some spare time (not often). In which case it will probably make much more sense to only look at data over the past 5 years as a pretty high level of detail should be available. I would also like to do some analysis on The above analysis but taking division into account, and plotting a nice graph to show it all. Striking partners - what kind of combo has been most successful? Formation - how does this, in relation to manager tie back to results Performance of promoted teams in the championship vs our performance. Monk will get back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 24 January 2007 Share Posted 24 January 2007 The points awarded are 3 for a win and 1 for a draw throughout. Like I said I will try to look into it more when I have some spare time (not often). In which case it will probably make much more sense to only look at data over the past 5 years as a pretty high level of detail should be available. I would also like to do some analysis on The above analysis but taking division into account, and plotting a nice graph to show it all. Striking partners - what kind of combo has been most successful? Formation - how does this, in relation to manager tie back to results Performance of promoted teams in the championship vs our performance. Monk will get back to you. Monk is legendary. MY monk. He's mine! MINE I TELL YOU. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.